Re: 'PROFILER' BROWN CLAIMS SHE IS TAKING LEGAL ACTION AGAINST MCCANNS

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:05 pm

I suspect the falling-down juice may have played a part, too, Lily. Well, it is scarcely the act of a woman in control of herself...

So, she announces she has hired a Seattle attorney, best known in the States (apart from that embarrassing DUI) for supporting Amanda Knox, to commence a libel action against two people in the UK who have never even mentioned her name in public.

And, having previously insisted she was doing all her own pitchforking for the public good, she also claims she - or rather her Seattle attorney - is starting an action for tortious interference with business, thus admitting she did it for financial gain.

And just to prove she is rational, and in control of herself, she announces all this on Twitter.

Stay classy, Pat rofl

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:14 pm

How odd, there is nothing so far about these momentous tidings on Ms Bremner's twitterfeed:

http://twitter.com/#!/annembremner

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:19 pm

I've been reading a bit about Ms Bremner's defence of Amanda Knox in the States:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1904571,00.html

She seems to be everything Brown is NOT. I really cannot see her rushing to act for the inventor of the 'bushmeat theory'.

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:32 pm

greenink211 green
@annembremner Is it true that you are conducting two new cases (libel and commercial) against the parents of Missing Madeleine #McCann?

This could be interesting.

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:39 pm

She has previously alluded to liking her tipple, Bonny. If she could read and understood what she has written, as other people can, she would realize what a fool she sounds.

No way has she hired a Washington State lawyer to sue the McCanns for libel or anything else.

Can you imagine how foolish she would look if she did that? The media would tear her a new one......and I have not forgotten how Oprah went to visit them in Rothley. Pcorneater

Well done to greenink. Look forward to hearing more....... thumbsup

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:49 pm

Jayelles wrote:I'd be interested to know if Brown is seeking to obtain some kind of compensation out of the Official Madeleine Search Fund. As I see it, the action taken against her was done in the interests of Madeleine McCann and since the Fund is there to pay for the search campaign, that would include dealing with any obstacles to the search. Brown's profile could certainly be interpreted as an obstacle in the search for missing Madeleine since it suggests that Madeleine died in her parent's apartment and that her parents immediately and without hesitation decided to cold-heartedly dump her body. The search for Madeleine desperately depends on people believing that she is alive and findable.

Therefore, as the McCanns acted on Madeleine's behalf, and the Fund is there to finance actions taken on Madeleine's behalf, is Brown hoping to get some of that Fund for herself?

Jay, I think that might be a question for sans or Anna?

I personally don't think that she cares where she gets money from, so long as she gets it? If ever there was any doubt in the past as to her motives, that's all been removed now.

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:52 pm

is Brown hoping to get some of that Fund for herself?

That's a very good point, Jayelles, and it certainly looks that way. If that's the case, as Lily says, the media will tear her a new one - not just here, in the States as well.

I could quite see Oprah coming out of retirement to expose Brown.

You know what baffles me? That the pitchforkers wonder why Carter Ruck and others work pro bono - any right-thinking person would, being confronted with despicable behaviour like Brown's.

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:02 pm

Bonny, I can also see Piers Morgan taking this further if she does that. It only requires someone to alert him......... Wink

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:12 pm

Oh, I am sure all sorts of alerting has been going on, Lily Wink

tortious interference with business

It's no surprise that that is how she views Madeleine, but it must be the Find Madeleine Fund she is targetting; she is totally deluded if she thinks that middle-class NHS doctors are rich.

Can you imagine how this will play in the media, in the unlikely event it is happening anywhere except in Brown's addled head?

She's virtually unknown in the UK, and she isn't exactly well-regarded in the US. She isn't on shows like Nancy Grace because anyone thinks she is awfully clever, it is because of ratings.

BROWN AT BAY OVER ATTEMPT TO EXTORT MONEY FROM PARENTS OF MISSING UK KIDDIE is a career-wrecker.

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:22 pm

Of course, Bonny. Wink

I would agree with yourself and Jay that it is the Fund she is targeting. I would appreciate sans' input about technical issues, if any, related thereto.

Would the Ward of Court matter play into any of this, if that were so?

BROWN AT BAY OVER ATTEMPT TO EXTORT MONEY FROM PARENTS OF MISSING UK KIDDIE is a career-wrecker.

OUCH!

**crazytony** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:24 pm

Is Brown doing the suing here or UK?

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:24 pm

That's what we would like to be answered, Tony.

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:27 pm

I've just remembered! Pretendy had a tantrum because she was refused service in a shop in the States.

She was trying to buy alcohol at 9 o' clock in the morning.....

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:30 pm

crazytony wrote:Is Brown doing the suing here or UK?

She must be trying it on in the States surely, Tony? No-one has yet been able to find a single remark of any kind the McCanns made about her, never mind a libellous one.

And Seattle attorneys can't really appear in the English High Court, they would be as out of their depth as any of us would be.

**crazytony** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:32 pm

lily wrote:That's what we would like to be answered, Tony.

Has she been in touch with Amazon's legal team to find out if they agreed with C & R?
If not it would be a wise move for her to do so.

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:36 pm

bb1 wrote:I've just remembered! Pretendy had a tantrum because she was refused service in a shop in the States.

She was trying to buy alcohol at 9 o' clock in the morning.....

Well done, Bonny. She did and we were horrified, as that is hard core. thumbsup

And Seattle attorneys can't really appear in the English High Court, they would be as out of their depth as any of us would be.

She has no license to practice in the UK, Bonny. She is not a member of a UK Inn of Court, so she would be clean out of luck. She could find a solicitor and barrister for her in the UK though.

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:38 pm

There doesn't seem to be much sign of her doing anything bar throwing her toys, Tony. Any lawyer/attorney would tell her to go and chase herself; she can't accuse people who haven't even spoken her name of libel, and she was offered a solution by Amazon. That she chose not to take it is her own fault.

I checked back in our extensive records biggrin

.

The 'FBI' business was because she claimed the FBI were investigating some breach of her copyright. Naturally, it turned out to be a load of bollox; the FBI have rather better things to do with their time rofl

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:39 pm

She could find a solicitor and barrister for her in the UK though.

Maybe Bennett could act for her pro bono rofl

**crazytony** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:43 pm

bb1 wrote:There doesn't seem to be much sign of her doing anything bar throwing her toys, Tony. Any lawyer/attorney would tell her to go and chase herself; she can't accuse people who haven't even spoken her name of libel, and she was offered a solution by Amazon. That she chose not to take it is her own fault.

I checked back in our extensive records .

The 'FBI' business was because she claimed the FBI were investigating some breach of her copyright. Naturally, it turned out to be a load of bollox; the FBI have rather better things to do with their time

Carter and Ruck cannot order Amazon to remove her book, they can request it be removed, but they cannot demand.
Amazon's legal team would have to read her book and decide if the English lawyers had real grounds for its removal. They obviously concurred with the English lawyers ergo the book was removed.

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:44 pm

Jayelles wrote:
bb1 wrote:She could find a solicitor and barrister for her in the UK though.

Maybe Bennett could act for her pro bono

That wonderful thought also occurred to me, Bonny. rofl

**lily** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:46 pm

crazytony wrote:
bb1 wrote:There doesn't seem to be much sign of her doing anything bar throwing her toys, Tony. Any lawyer/attorney would tell her to go and chase herself; she can't accuse people who haven't even spoken her name of libel, and she was offered a solution by Amazon. That she chose not to take it is her own fault.

I checked back in our extensive records .

The 'FBI' business was because she claimed the FBI were investigating some breach of her copyright. Naturally, it turned out to be a load of bollox; the FBI have rather better things to do with their time
Carter and Ruck cannot order Amazon to remove her book, they can request it be removed, but they cannot demand.
Amazon's legal team would have to read her book and decide if the English lawyers had real grounds for its removal. They obviously concurred with the English lawyers ergo the book was removed.

You are right, Tony. Bit of a problem for her, isn't there?

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:52 pm

greenink211 green
@skymartinbrunt Any news on the latest #McCann Libel trial being conducted by lawyer @annebremner on behalf of @ProfilerPatB in the USA?
2 hours ago

Oh dear, looks like Brown is going to have to put up or shut up Pcorneater

**crazytony** Fri Nov 04, 2011 9:55 pm

lily wrote:
crazytony wrote:
bb1 wrote:There doesn't seem to be much sign of her doing anything bar throwing her toys, Tony. Any lawyer/attorney would tell her to go and chase herself; she can't accuse people who haven't even spoken her name of libel, and she was offered a solution by Amazon. That she chose not to take it is her own fault.

I checked back in our extensive records .

The 'FBI' business was because she claimed the FBI were investigating some breach of her copyright. Naturally, it turned out to be a load of bollox; the FBI have rather better things to do with their time
Carter and Ruck cannot order Amazon to remove her book, they can request it be removed, but they cannot demand.
Amazon's legal team would have to read her book and decide if the English lawyers had real grounds for its removal. They obviously concurred with the English lawyers ergo the book was removed.

You are right, Tony. Bit of a problem for her, isn't there?

I would say so, lily. Unless Amazon received a court order and I cannot see the English lawyers getting a court order in such a short space of time; therefore, her gripe should start with Amazon's legal department

**bb1** Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:06 pm

So, just who does Pretendy think is going to hand over $$$$$$$$$$$ for non-existent 'libel'?

1. A Fund set up to try to find a missing British child?

2. A pair of NHS doctors who are the parents of the missing child?

As for the tortious interference with business....

if she sold 170 on Amazon in July, then given that it is available from other outlets, she must have missed out on, oh, at least $300 of sales via Amazon. Let's be generous and say $500.

She claimed she was only taking 50% which means she has lost $250 tops.

Maybe we should have a whip-round rofl

**crazytony** Fri Nov 04, 2011 10:11 pm

bb1 wrote:So, just who does Pretendy think is going to hand over $$$$$$$$$$$ for non-existent 'libel'?

1. A Fund set up to try to find a missing British child?

2. A pair of NHS doctors who are the parents of the missing child?

As for the tortious interference with business....

if she sold 170 on Amazon in July, then given that it is available from other outlets, she must have missed out on, oh, at least $300 of sales via Amazon. Let's be generous and say $500.

She claimed she was only taking 50% which means she has lost $250 tops.

Maybe we should have a whip-round

So her business is solely dependent on her selling her books? I hope she can prove it.

Sponsored content